Life

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2, a measure to repeal Obama’s health care law. Entitled, “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act,” the measure was passed by a 245-189 vote, with unanimous GOP approval. Today, the House will consider H.R. 2’s companion bill, H.R. 9, which will instruct four House committees to draft new legislation to replace the health care law. As part of the GOP’s campaign promise to “repeal and replace” ObamaCare, H.R. 9 charges the appropriate House committees with drafting a new health care law that will prohibit denial of coverage for preexisting conditions, reduce medical malpractice suits, and “prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions and provide conscience protections for health care providers.”

The 50s had Benjamin Spock. The 90s had Oprah. We have the sage wisdom of Rep. Louise Slaughter. Concerned over the bloodshed in Tucson last weekend—who isn’t? — the democrat from New York zeroed in on the social problem with that razor sharp sagacity that only liberal politicians possess. The real issue behind the violence in our country? The media—it’s “what they’re hearing over the airwaves.”

Saving a Life, or Saving Money December 15, 2020 Atlanta Journal Constitution Meningococcal meningitis and meningococcal septicemia are the leading cause of death by infectious disease in early childhood. Even with early detection, the disease can kill in as little … Read

If an unborn baby in the fetal or embryonic stage of life dies as a result of a miscarriage it would not be immoral to do worthwhile scientific research using tissues taken from it. But, as Germain Grisez noted in his massive book on Difficult Moral Questions, a serious problem of conscience can frequently face pro-life scientists and researchers regarding use of tissues taken from embryonic or fetal human persons who were intentionally aborted. The quandary is the following: Suppose that it is not possible to do the research proposed by using spontaneously aborted unborn babies who miscarry. For example, certain research may require using embryonic/fetal tissue that must be fresh and not frozen or in any way not normal and tissues from miscarried embryos/fetuses do not meet these criteria. What should a conscientious pro-life person do if his research center agreed to use biological material obtained as a result of the intentional abortion of babies in their embryonic or fetal stages of life? Grisez concluded that the scientist ought not participate in the research nor cooperate with it in any way, even by advising a colleague who would take his place but who is not as knowledgeable about the science involved as he is. Grisez, however, thinks that if certain conditions are fulfilled, he could offer this colleague some advice if it justified tolerating bad side effects that would accompany the discovery of a procedure that would also greatly benefit unborn babies (pp. 385-388).

On November 16th, the Institutes of Medicine (IOM) hosted a panel for the Committee on Preventative Services for Women, the first of a series of meetings which will ultimately result in official recommendations for the Obama Administration’s final rules on … Read

On October 13, a judge in Northern Ireland’s High Court dismissed claims brought by two children seeking damages from the IVF clinic that used mislabeled sperm to inseminate their mother’s eggs, resulting in the children having darker skin than their legal parents. The parents had desired sperm from a “white” donor to be used in the insemination. The children attempted to bring forth a “wrongful life” cause of action based on the color of their skin.

On September 23, House Republican leaders released their “Pledge to America,” a broad set of policy proposals and goals covering five basic areas: jobs, government spending, health care, congressional reform and national security. The ambitious GOP agenda notably vows to “repeal and replace Obamacare.” Specifically, it declares: “We will permanently end taxpayer funding of abortion and codify the Hyde Amendment.” It also states that Republicans “pledge to honor families [and] traditional marriage.” Read

WASHINGTON, D.C., AUG. 25, 2010 (Zenit.org).- On Aug. 13, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the approval of a new "emergency contraceptive" called "Ella." Its competitor, Plan B, is said to "prevent pregnancy" up to 72 hours (3 days) after intercourse. Ella boasts of 120 hours (5 days) of post-coital effectiveness. The drug is produced by the Paris-based pharmaceutical company HRA Pharma and will be marketed by Watson Pharmaceuticals based out of Morristown, New Jersey. The FDA advisors voted unanimously to approve the drug.

Recently my colleague E. Christian Brugger called attention to the threats to the Culture of Life posed by “Transhumanism.” After I read his thoughtful and thought-provoking article, I was reminded of the threats to “culture of life” issues and to the Christian faith by “Virtual Reality.”

21st century Americans—and others, particularly in the “developed” nations—are deeply divided over issues central to the culture of life: contraception, the generation of human life, abortion, the care of seriously handicapped infants and of the dying, the meaning of sex, marriage, the family, and the kind of home best suited to help children grow into caring and responsible adults. There are many reasons supporting culture of life positions, but there is a need to show why these reasons are good and true and to help others see why. Moreover, sometimes advocates of the culture of life can and do disagree among themselves and/or find themselves perplexed about what is the right and good thing to do. Is there any way to resolve these disputes and overcome doubts?